The effect of implant‐supported removable partial dentures on oral health quality of life

Gates, William D.; Cooper, Lyndon F.; Sanders, Anne E.; Reside, Glenn; Kok, Ingeborg J. De

doi:10.1111/clr.12085

Cited by 55 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Only 6% demonstrated a reliable improvement for T2–T3. This positive effect of an implant treatment on OHRQoL has been noted by several recent studies . Patients with a Kennedy III classification had a statistically significant higher OHIP score at intake (T1) and after 2 weeks of surgery (T2) than did patients with a Kennedy II classification.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

The effect of implant placement in patients with either Kennedy class II and III on oral health‐related quality of life: a prospective clinical trial

Eekeren

Aartman

Tahmaseb

et al. 2015

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is little evidence of the effect of implants restored with fixed partial dentures on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in partially edentulous Kennedy class II and III patients. The aim of this study was to determine the change in OHRQoL in Kennedy classification II and III patients treated with a two-implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis (FDP). Kennedy class II and III patients received dental implants and an FDP. Oral health-related quality of life was measured by administration of the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14NL) questionnaire at intake (T1), 2 weeks after surgery (T2) and after 1 year of loading (T3). The mean OHIP score at T1 was 6·5 ± 1·2, 2·4 ± 1·0 at T2, and 0·9 ± 0·3 at T3. There was a statistically significant difference between T1 and T2 (P = 0·002) and T1 and T3 (P < 0·001) but not between T2 and T3 (P = 0·407). The OHIP score in Kennedy II patients decreased from 4·8 ± 3·2 at T1 to 1·5 ± 2·0 at T2 and 1·1 ± 1·8 at T3, and that in Kennedy III patients decreased from 8·9 ± 9·6 at T1 to 3·6 ± 8·9 at T2 and 0·8 ± 2·2 at T3. There were no statistically significant differences in the reductions in Kennedy II and III patients. Oral health-related quality of life changed positively in patients treated with implants and an FDP in both groups. There was no change in OHRQoL between the times of implant placement and FDP placement.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

The effect of implant placement in patients with either Kennedy class II and III on oral health‐related quality of life: a prospective clinical trial

Eekeren

Aartman

Tahmaseb

et al. 2015

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since denture complaints from partly edentulous patients resemble those of fully edentulous patients, providing implant support to RPDs may be to the functional and psychological benefit of partly edentulous patients too. It presumably improves stability, retention and chewing ability, patient comfort in general, and even nutrient intake . The use of unaesthetic clasps can often be avoided with implant support …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant‐supported mandibular removable partial dentures: Functional, clinical and radiographical parameters in relation to implant position

Jensen

Speksnijder

Raghoebar

et al. 2017

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, patients tend to use the anterior areas for mastication, since they have a better efficiency on the teeth then on the rotational end of the saddle. Researches show that, for free-end saddle RPDs, an implant positioned in the distal area offers an additional support and retention which is essential for the long-term prognostic of the treatment and also for patient's satisfaction [3,16]. This solution avoids the rotation of the denture towards the mucosa, so common for classical free-end saddle RPDs, and transforms a class I or II Kennedy edentulous patient in a class III Kennedy one [17], changing completely the biodynamic of the denture during function.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compared stress levels of removable partial dentures with attachments with and without distal implants — A finite element analysis

Andrei

Dăguci

Țierean

et al. 2015

2015 E-Health and Bioengineering Conference (EHB)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a comparison between the maximum von Mises stress values an maximum displacements appeared under occlusal loading in different areas of a mandibular class I Kennedy removable partial dentures (RPD) with ball attachments, in two situations: teeth supported only, and implant and teeth supported. The first 3D model was created for class I Kennedy RPDs with only six anterior teeth as abutments. The second 3D model was created for the same situation, adding two implants, placed bilaterally, each in the second molar area. On the implants were also positioned ball attachments, providing support and retention for the denture. All materials were considered homogeneous, isotropic and having linear elasticity. Our results demonstrate important differences between the two possible prosthetic treatment solutions for the same class I Kennedy situation, showing that associating an implant for each free-end saddle reduces the maximum von Mises stress and the maximum displacement's values in the RPD. Keywords-RPD, ball attachments, implants, FEAI.

show abstract

The effect of implant‐supported removable partial dentures on oral health quality of life

Abstract: Patients reported improved oral health following conversion to an ISRPD from RPD. The ISRPD involving short implants is one treatment option that should be considered when treatment planning Kennedy Class I and II patients.

Cited by 55 publications

References 17 publications

The effect of implant placement in patients with either Kennedy class II and III on oral health‐related quality of life: a prospective clinical trial

The effect of implant placement in patients with either Kennedy class II and III on oral health‐related quality of life: a prospective clinical trial

Implant‐supported mandibular removable partial dentures: Functional, clinical and radiographical parameters in relation to implant position

Compared stress levels of removable partial dentures with attachments with and without distal implants — A finite element analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About